- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:29:53 -0500
- To: jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
On Nov 21, 2005, at 7:21 PM, jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote: > Quoting Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>: > >> (By way of refutation to your bromide about complexity and users, I'll >> point out that XML schema is definitely more complex than OWL (by many >> measures, including computational complexity) and more widely used. >> So, >> eh.) > > I'm not convinced that that is true in practice. Sigh. Note the point about "by many measures" and the point about *computational* complexity (XML Schema is undecidable; OWL DL is NExpTime; it may never matter or it might be that most actual XML Schemas allow linear conformance checking). Of course, if there is a sweet spot, then that can explain why something "more complex" is used. But that's exactly a nuance that matters. [snip] > The point is that, for many purposes, learning enough of > XML Sxchemas will be easier than learning enough OWL. Sure. And the task that XML Schema is generally used for is more "obvious" and was antecedently desired. I think my point stands. The point being that just saying "too complex" is rarely a sufficient explanation. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:30:01 UTC